STEPHEN  B.WEEIHS 

CUSS  OF  1886;  PtiD.  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS  IMVERStTY 


OF  THE 

TIE  WEEKS  GOUSCFMN 


BBBB^feggsSSMBEB 


C378 

UK3 

1878C 


UNIVERSITY  OF  N.C.  AT  CHAPEL  HILL 


00039136522 


This  book  must  not 
be  taken  from  the 
Library  building. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


http://www.archive.org/details/folliesofpositivOOclin 


FL 


M 


rr 


DAQITn^  BniTAQAB 


1?L  llllL 


F! 


1L 


ADDRE 


TO    THE 


UNIVERSITY  NORMAL  SCHOOL 


OF 


NORTH    CAROLINA 


DELIVERED  AT 


CHA.I>EIj    HILL,     JUNL    £6,     1878, 


BY 


HON.  T.  L  CLINGMAN. 


R  A  L  E I  G  II  : 
JOHN  NICHOLS,  BOOK  AND  JOB  PRINTER. 

1878. 


ADDRESS. 


It  is  not  my  purpose  to-day  to  discuss  elaborately  a  particular  sub* 
ject,  much  less  to  attempt  to  make  a  rhetorical  display.  The  line  of 
thought  intended  to  be  offered  can  be  better  presented  in  a  lively  con- 
versational style,  than  by  earnest  declamation.  Intellectual  instruc- 
tion can  be  more  successfully  conveyed  in  such  a  mode  than  by  that 
species  of  turgid  declamation  which,  like  the  mock  thunder  of  the 
stage,  attempts  to  impose  itself  on  the  ignorant  for  eloquence. 

Even  real  eloquence  which  arouses  the  passions  of  men  and  drives 
them  forward  under  the  enthusiasm  of  the  moment,  often  fails  to  leave 
distinct  and  permanent  intellectual  images  on  the  mind.  Jefferson 
said  that  after  Patrick  Henry  had  concluded  a  speech,  one  could 
scarcely  remember  what  he  had  said.  I  have  myself  listened  to 
speeches,  which  wrought  most  strongly  on  my  feelings,  as  well  as  those 
of  the  audience  present,  and  yet  in  several  instances,  after  they  were 
finished,  it  was  not  possible  to  recall  much  of  that  which  had  produced 
the  impression. 

A  fine  band  of  music  greatly  enlivens  the  imagination  and  excites 
the  feelings,  but  leaves  no  distinct  intellectual  images  which  can  be 
recalled.  As  so  large  a  part  of  the  audience  I  am  now  about  to  address, 
consists  of  those  engaged  in  conveying  instruction  to  others,  these  sug- 
gestions appear  to  be  appropriate. 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  earliest  historic  ages,  two  branches  of 
science  have  been  recognized  and  distinguished  under  the  general 
terms  of  natural  and  moral  philosophy.  The  first  confines  itself  to 
the  examination  and  investigation  of  material  phenomena,  while  the 
second  deals  almost  exclusively  with  human  thoughts  and  feelings. 
In  our  day  those  who  represent  most  distinctly  the  extremes  of  these  two 
classes  of  thinkers,  may  be  designated  as  Positive  philosophers  on  the 
one  hand  and  as  Theologians  on  the  other. 

Instead  of  acting  as  allies,  in  the  effort  to  advance  human  knowl- 
edge, they  are  often  found  in  antagonism  to  each  other.  And  yet  in 
our  day  they  often  seem  to  carry  on  their  warfare  at  so  great  a  distance 
from  each  other,  that  they  remind  us  of  the  method  in  which  the 
Mexicans,  in  their  civil  revolutionary  wars,  do  their  fighting,  viz: 
by  standing  on  opposite  ridges  so  far  apart,  that  they  are  able  to  dis- 
charge all  their  ammunition  without  injuring  any  one  on  either  side. 
In  fact  they  accomplish  the  Hudibrastic  feat  of  "living  to  fight  another 
day,"  without  taking  the  trouble  to  "run  away."  Perhaps  a  better 
illustration  might  present  itself,  in  a  remark  attributed  to  Prince 
Bismarck,  that  war  between  Russia  and  England  would  be  a  fight 
between  an  elephant  and  a  whale. 

From  necessity  the  theologians  devote  much  of  their  time  to  the 


(4) 

examination  and  study  of  writers  on  moral  and  religious  subjects. 
But  many  of  them  do  this  so  exclusively  that  they  attempt  to  decide 
the  argument  against  the  positive  philosophers,  by  the  authority  of 
the  Bible  alone. 

As  an  illustration  of  their  method,  I  mention  this  anecdote.  On  a 
certain  occasion  I  had  a  conversation  with  three  Infidels,  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  Scriptural  views,  &c.  After  they  had,  in  the  course  of  the 
argument,  been  successively  driven  from  other  positions,  one"of  them 
said,  "if  then  it  be  true  that  there  is  one  Supreme  God,  you  cannot  tell 
whether  He  is  a  man  or  a  woman."  To  close  the  discussion,  I  an- 
swered, "That  question  is  not  material,  for  the  authority  and  power 
of  queen  Victoria  in  England  is  just  as  great  as  was  that  of  her  pre- 
decessor, king  William."  An  acquaintance  of  mine  who  had  silently 
listened  to  the  argument,  afterwards,  when  we  were  alone  together, 
said  to  me,  "if  you  were  as  well  posted  on  this  subject  as  you  are  in 
law  and  politics,  you  would  have  put  those  men  down  at  once.  Why 
did  you  not  tell  him  the  Bible  sa}7s  'He  will  do  such  things'?"  It  did 
not  occur  to  my  friend,  that  if  my  antagonist  had  recognized  the  au- 
thority of  the  Bible,  there  would  have  been  no  controversy  between 
us.  By  acquainting  themselves  better  than  they  sometimes  do  with 
the  arguments  of  the  Scientists,  the  Theologians  would  often  meet 
their  objections  more  successfully,  as  a  harpoon  may  be  so  skillfully 
directed  as  to  reach  the  monarch  of  the  briny  deep. 

To-day  I  intend  chiefly  to  occupy  your  time  with  considering  the 
views  of  their  antagonists,  the  so-called  positive  philosophers.  Many 
of  them  are  prone  to  ignore  the  great  truths  of  moral  science,  though 
they  are  just  as  evidently  real  as  are  the  material  existences  which 
our  senses  observe. 

They,  because  they  cannot  ascertain  the  geometrical  form  of  honesty, 
or  measure  the  specific  gravity  of  anger  or  love,  as  compared  with 
hydrogen  gas,  do  not  appear  to  recognize  the  existence  of  such  qualities. 

As  the  views  of  this  class  of  thinkers  are  exercising  a  dangerous  and 
mischievous  influence  on  the  minds  of  men,  I  propose  to  call  your 
attention  more  especially  to  them.  When  a  man  exhibits  high  intel- 
lectual power,  in  connection  with  certain  subjects,  there  is  a  tendency 
in  the  human  mind  to  adopt  his  views  generally.  There  are  few 
greater  fallacies  than  this. 

If  on  entering  a  village  as  a  stranger  I  should  enquire  for  some  one 
to  make  a  suit  of  clothes,  a  person  might  say  to  me,  "Just across  the 
street  you  will  find  the  best  blacksmith  in  the  country;  he  began  the 
trade  at  sixteen,  and  has  closely  pursued  it  for  thirty  years,  and  has 
no  superior."  Ludicrous  as  would  be  the  assumption,  that  because  a 
man  was  a  good  blacksmith  he  ought,  for  that  reason,  to  be  able  to 
make  a  suit  of  clothes  or  build  a  house,  yet  a  similar  mistake  is  often 
made  with  respect  to  the  opinions  of  men  of  great  eminence  in  some 
branch  of  science.  In  fact,  their  opinions  are  usually  worth  less,  out- 
side of  the  line  of  their  immediate  studies,  than  are  those  of  well 
informed  persons,  who  have  taken  a  general  view  of  human  knowledge. 

I  propose  to  make  this  evident  by  references  to  the  opinions  of  cer- 
tain gentlemen  eminent  in  philosophic  science. 


(M 

Prof.  John  Tyndall  is  justly  entitled  to  occupy  the  highest  rank 
among  the  great  scientists  of  the  day.  His  book  on  heat  is  a  wonder- 
ful production.  You  have  all  doubtless  heard  of  his  prayer  test,  as  it 
is  called.  Some  years  since  he,  with  a  view  to  determining  the  value 
of  prayer,  commended  a  proposition  to  test  the  matter  in  this  mode. 
It  was  proposed  that  Christians  generally  should  offer  prayers  for  the 
sick  living  in  a  certain  ward  or  district  of  London.  This  system  of 
praying  was  to  be  kept  up  for  the  term  of  five  years,  and  then  a  com- 
parison should  be  made  of  the  general  health  of  the  district  during 
this  term  with  that  which  had  existed  for  a  like  previous  number  of 
years.  In  this  manner  it  was  asserted  that  the  question  would  be 
decided  whether  prayer  was  beneficial  to  mankind  or  not. 

The  moral  elements  which  would  seem  to  constitute  a  part  of  this 
proposition  may  be  better  presented  by  a  case  like  this;  A  and  B 
have  each  bet  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars  on  a  horse  race  to  come 
off  next  Sunday.  The  terms  are  what  the  sportsmen  call,  "play  or 
pay;"  that  is,  that  each  of  the  parties  having  put  up  his  thousand 
dollars,  it  is  agreed  that  if  either  of  them  fails  to  make  his  appear- 
ance his  adversary  is  to  take  the  stakes.  A,  being  very  anxious  to  win, 
and  feeling  doubt  as  to  the  result,  determines  to  enlist  if  possible 
Providence  on  his  side  through  an  earnest  prayer.  While  reflecting 
on  the  subject  this  train  of  thought  occurs  to  him  and  he  soliloquises 
thus :  "  I  am  not  sure  that  it  will  be  politic  for  me  to  pray  that  my 
horse  may  be  enabled  to  win  the  race,  for  I  do  not  know  that  God 
Almighty  takes  much  interest  in  horse  racing,  and  especially  in  racing 
on  Sunday.  I  will  therefore  use  some  strategy  on  this  occasion.  I 
will  pray  to  Him  to  convert  my  adversary  B  and  make  a  Christian  of 
him.  This  will  be  e  good  thing  in  itself,  and  God  Almighty  will 
probably  be  willing  to  do  this.  And  if  B  should  be  converted  and 
become  a  pious  Christian,  then  he  will  see  the  great  wickedness  of 
horse  racing  on  Sunday,  and  he  will  not  think  of  thus  breaking  the 
Sabbath.  As  he  will  not  come  up  to  the  scratch  with  his  horse,  I  will 
get  his  thousand  dollars." 

Does  not  this  case  present  the  same  moral  elements  as  that  proposed 
by  Prof.  Tyndall?  In  effect  Tyndall  says,  if  we  pray  to  God  directly 
for  a  sign  that  will  convince  us.  he  will  probably  refuse  to  comply 
with  our  prayer,  as  he  did  the  request  of  the  unbelieving  Jews,  when 
they  asked  for  a  sign  to  convince  them,  but  if  we  pray  that  he  will  per- 
form a  charitable  work,  then  as  he  will  not  be  able  to  see  through  our 
cunning  strategy,  he  may,  without  being  aware  of  it,  furnish  us  the 
sign  we  seek.  So  palpable  a  fraud  does  this  seem  to  be,  that  had  such 
a  suggestion  been  made  in  the  time  of  Virgil,  he  would  probably 
among  his  poetical  pictures,  have  given  us  one  of  the  man  who  had 
been  hurled  down  into  Tartarus  by  one  of  Jupiter's  thunderbolts  for 
attempting  to  deceive  the  gods  by  such  a  fraud. 

This  subject  brings  to  mind  the  views  of  Prof.  Tyndall,  and  some 
other  scientists  of  his  school,  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  miracles. 
Not  only  is  their  truthfulness  denied,  but  it  is  asserted  that  the  Creator 
could  not  perform  a  miracle  without  deranging  the  system  of  the  Uni- 
verse.    Though  such  a  statement  is  a  striking  one,  and  calculated  to 


(6) 

arrest  attention,  what  consideration  is  it  really  entitled  to  ?  Would 
the  occurrence  of  what  is  usually  termed  a  miracle  justify  such  a 
statement  ? 

A  stream  is  seen  to  be  running  along  a  ravine  between  two  hills, 
and  this  stream,  in  accordance  with  the  natural  law  of  gravity,  should 
forever  continue  its  course  along  that  ravine.  But  it  in  fact  may  be 
diverted  from  its  former  channel  and  carried  along  the  side  of  the 
hill  and  finally  discharged  into  a  different  valley.  What  has  produced 
this  seeming  violation  of  the  natural  law  of  gravity  ?  The  will  of 
man,  acting,  however,  in  accordance  with  other  natural  laws. 

Again,  a  man  stands  by  a  spring  or  basin  of  water  near  his  feet. 
The  law  of  nature  seems  to  prevent  this  water  from  rising  out  of  the 
basin,  and  yet  a  portion  of  it  is  lifted  to  the  lips  of  the  man.  What 
caused  such  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature?  The  will  of  man, 
acting  through  his  muscles,  caused  a  portion  of  this  water,  held  in  a 
cup,  to  be  thus  elevated. 

Now  let  us  apply  the  principles  obviously  illustrated  by  these  cases 
to  one  class  of  miracles,  which  the  scientist  affirms  will  interfere  with 
the  natural  laws  established  by  the  creative  power.  The  country  is 
suffering  from  drought  and  a  congregation  of  Christians  pray  for 
rain.  Let  it  be  assumed  that  a  heavy  cloud,  one  hundred  miles  dis- 
tant in  the  west,  is  being  moved  in  such  a  direction,  that  it  would  pass 
to  the  northward  of  the  place  where  the  congregation  are  praying, 
should  the  creative  power  change  the  direction  of  this  cloud,  would 
such  an  act  necessarily  derange  the  system  of  the  universe  any  more 
than  did  the  act  of  the  miller  who  directed  the  rivulet  from  its  cours? 

But,  again,  suppose  that  at  the  time  the  church  congregation  is  at 
prayer,  there  were  in  fact  no  cloud  existing  within  a  thousand  miles 
of  the  spot.  We  know  that  if  the  warm  air  near  the  surface  of  the 
earth,  which  is  saturated  with  moisture,  be  elevated  to  a  considerable 
height,  the  diminished  pressure  will  allow  it  to  be  expanded,  rarified 
and  cooled,  and  thus  its  vapor  of  water  will  be  condensed  into  a  cloud. 
This  is  so  obvious  a  fact,  that  it  has  been  suggested  that  great  artificial 
fires  should  be  made  to  effect  such  a  result.  If  the  creative  power 
should  cause  an  upward  movement  in  the  lower  strata  of  the  air, 
that  resulted  in  the  production  of  a  rainfall,  would  such  an  act  tend  to 
derange  the  system  of  the  universe  any  more  than  did  the  lifting  of 
a  cup  of  water  to  the  lips  of  the  thirsty  traveller  ?  Will  it  be  pre- 
tended that  the  power  which  created  the  sj^stem  of  nature  and  gave  to 
it  the  laws  which  govern  it,  would  not  be  able  to  perform  such  acts  as 
may  be  done  by  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth  ? 

Let  us  next  consider  a  different  class  of  miracles,  such  as  the  giving 
life  to  the  dead,  or  creating  a  new  being  out  of  nothing.  Is  it  to  be 
considered  extraordinary  that  a  power  which,  for  example,  had  for- 
merly created  millions  of  men,  should  to-day  be  able  to  create  a  single 
man  ?  Would  it  not  excite  surprise  if  the  statement  were  made  that 
though  the  citizens  of  New  York  had  erected  one  hundred  thousand 
houses,  yet  they  were  not  able  to  construct  a  single  additional  house, 
or  that  a  man  who  had  made  one  thousand  shoes  could  not  make 
another  one  ?     Upon  what  ground  can  it  be  assumed  that  the  power 


(7) 

which  created  the  material  universe  has  become  so  exhausted  that  it 
could  add  nothing  to  that  creation? 

Even  if  we  assume  that  only  two  human  beings  were  created,  with 
the  capacity  for  indefinite  multiplication,  that  act  implies  all  the  sub- 
sequent multiplication.  The  creation  of  a  single  complete  oak  tree, 
in  fact  does  not  seem  to  be  as  great  a  miracle  as  the  creation  of  an 
acorn  which  is  capable  of  being  developed  into  an  oak  tree,  bearing 
other  acorns,  capable  of  producing  in  succession  an  infinite  number 
of  other  trees.  If  then  the  origin  of  the  world,  and  its  innumerable 
animal  and  vegetable  inhabitants,  be  the  result  of  an  act  of  creative 
power,  why  might  not  that  power  be  again  manifested  on  a  small 
scale?  Why  should  it  not  be  as  easy  for  such  a  power  to  create  an 
insect  as  to  bring  into  existence  a  sun  with  its  planetary  system  and 
countless  organised  beings? 

With  respect  to  the  origin  of  the  world  around  us,  as  it  is  manifested 
to  our  senses,  two  conflicting  theories  have  been  maintained.  The 
first,  and  that  most  general^  adopted  by  mankind,  attributes  the  ex- 
istence of  the  universe  to  the  act  of  an  intelligent,  all-powerful  creator. 
The  second  regards  matter  as  capable  in  itself  of  producing  all  the 
facts  observed  by  our  senses,  and  denies  the  existence  of  any  forces 
or  powers  outside  of  the  material  elements  themselves.  God  repre- 
sents the  views  of  the  first  class  and  Nature  those  of  the  second. 

In  one  of  Prof.  T\mdall's  addresses,  he  says  that  he  is  not  prepared 
to  deny  that  ever}'  fact,  movement,  and  even  thought  is  the  result 
and  consequence  of  some  condition  of  the  sun  in  the  past.  If  he  does 
not  t-peak  of  this  as  probable,  yet  he  so  refers  to  it  as  to  imply  that  he 
regards  it  as  one  of  the  possibilities  of  scientific  truth. 

This  statement,  or  figure  at  least,  furnishes  us  as  suitable  an  illus- 
tration of  the  two  classes  of  views  as  can  be  had.  Let  it  be  supposed, 
for  example,  that  long  ago,  from  its  expansion,  due  to  its  intense  heat, 
a  portion  of  the  sun's  matter  filled  the  space  of  the  earth's  present 
orbit.  In  time,  by  cooling,  this  mass  of  matter  may  have  been  col- 
lected into  our  present  globe  of  the  earth,  and  b}^  continued  cooling 
became  solidified,  and  has  gone  through  the  changes  necessary  to 
bring  the  earth  to  its  present  condition.  Prof.  Tyndali's  view  implies 
that  while  this  matter  formed  a  part  of  the  sun's  mass,  such  forces  were 
impressed  on  it  and  such  properties  given  to  it,  that  all  the  organized 
beings  existing  were  the  direct  result  of  these  former  conditions  of  the 
sun,  and  our  every  movement,  pulsation  and  thought  are  the  conse- 
quences of  that  past  condition. 

So  great  and  so  complicated  does  such  a  problem  seem,  that  the 
mind  does  not  readily  grasp  and  comprehend  it.  If  I  throw  a  stone 
against  the  window,  we  readily  see  that  a  glass  may  be  broken  as  a 
consequence  of  the  movement  of  my  muscles,  and  we  easily  perceive 
that  the  motion  of  the  hands  of  a  watch  is  the  result  of  the  condition 
of  its  mainspring.  But  to  enable  us  to  approach  a  comprehension  of 
so  vast  a  proposition  as  this  of  Prof.  Tyndall,  two  or  three  steps  may  be 
taken  by  way  of  illustration. 

Let  us  suppose  that  a  scientific  professor  in  the  city  of  Washington 
for  example,  should  say,  "I  have  such  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  exist- 


(8) 

ing  condition  of  all  the  material  and  animal  forces  of  the  earth,  that  1 
will  at  a  certain  moment  of  time  to-morrow,  at  a  certain  place,  drop 
into  the  Potomac  this  piece  of  cork  which  I  hold,  and  it  shall  be  carried 
along  down  the  stream,  and  though  shaken  by  the  moveirents  of 
steamers,  and  tossed  by  the  fins  of  fishes,  it  shall  not  lodge  against  the 
bank,  but  shall  find  its  way  into  the  Chesapeake  Bay.  It  shall  then 
cross  the  Bay,  and  be  floated  along  in  the  ocean  till  it  reaches  the  Gulf 
Stream.  This  stream  will  carry  it  into  the  Northern  Sea,  and  it  shall 
be  returned  in  a  course  not  far  from  the  British  Isles,  and  pass  along 
through  the  Gulf  of  Guinea.  It  shall  then  be  drifted  westwardly, 
pass  through  the  Straits  of  Magellan  and  across  the  Pacific  Ocean. 
At  a  point  which  I  can  now  designate,  it  will  be  found  in  the  harbor 
of  Canton,  in  China,  and  within  the  period  of  thirteen  years,  four 
months,  three  days,  eleven  hours,  six  minutes  and  two  seconds,  from 
the  moment  when  I  have  dropped  it  into  the  water,  it  will  be  picked 
up  by  a  boatman  I"  Such  a  statement  as  this,  strange  as  it  might 
seem,  serves  to  give  us  but  a  faint  idea  of  what  the  sun  has  done. 

We  will  consider  another  case  by  way  of  illustration.  A  certain 
man  declares  that  he  has  so  much  mechanical  knowledge,  and  such 
skill  as  a  manipulator,  that  he  will  take  an  hundred  bushels  of  print- 
er's types,  throw  them  into  a  large  vessel  which  will  be  worked  by  a 
steam  engine,  and  that  he  will  so  regulate  the  movement  of  the  vessel, 
that  after  it  has  been  agitated  for  an  hour,  with  the  types  in  it,  a  small 
orifice  will  be  opened  in  its  side,  through  which  at  each  revolution, 
a  letter  will  fall  out.  He  will  so  shake  the  vessel  that  when  the  letters 
fall  successively,  they  shall  be  set  up  just  as  they  fall,  and  when  im- 
pressions are  made  with  them,  there  will  be  an  accurate  edition  of  the 
works  of  Shakespeare  in  the  order  in  which  they  have  been  originally 
written;  secondly,  Milton's  works;  thirdty,  Byron's  entire  works,  and 
fourthly,  an  accurate  edition  of  the  Bible  !  It  is  evident  that  the 
chances  of  producing  such  a  result  are  more  difficult  than  could  be 
mathematically  expressed.  It  is  not  probable  that  the  youngest  person 
here  present,  if  he  were  to  devote  his  life  to  the  effort,  would  be  able 
to  give  accurately  a  single  sentence  of  ten  words  by  such  a  process. 

Yet  even  this  does  not  suffice  to  give  more  than  a  faint  idea  of  what 
the  sun  has  done,  for  it  has  printed  all  the  books  in  the  world,  pro- 
duced all  the  vegetables  and  animals  existing,  and  regulated  every 
one  of  their  movements  and  thoughts.  Let  us  conside'  for  a  moment 
one  of  the  small  items  of  its  task.  To  form  each  observed  part  of  a 
single  human  body,  countless  atoms  are  required.  Suppose,  however, 
all  this  has  been  accomplished,  and  that  the  several  members  of  a 
man's  body  existed  and  were  thrown  together  with  a  capacity  to  adhere 
as  they  touched  each  other.  Would  it  not  be  rare  luck  that  all  the 
teeth  should  happen  to  get  together  into  two  rows  on  the  inside  of  the 
mouth,  that  his  eye  lashes  and  eye  brows  should  form  themselves  sys- 
tematically without  any  of  them  straggling  over  his  nose?  Would  it 
not  be  still  more  strange  that  a  hundred  and  forty  thousand  hairs 
should  congregate  on  his  head,  that  the  patches  of  his  skin  should  all 
get  on  the  outside  of  his  body,  and  the  bones  should,  inside  of  it,  ar- 
range themselves  in  a  suitable  order? 


(9) 

The  sun  not  only  made  and  arranged  all  these  for  one  man,  but  it 
had  to  provide  in  like  manner  for  the  innumerable  millions  that  have 
existed,  as  well  as  the  countless  other  organized  animals  and  vegetables, 
and  is  now  not  only  producing  our  movements  and  thoughts,  but  is 
in  like  manner  producing  those  of  every  existing  insect. 

If  I  were  to  attempt  to  give  you  the  highest,  and  most  expanded 
conception  of  what  an  infinitely  wise  and  powerful  creator  was  capa- 
ble of,  could  I  do  it  better  than  to  present  this  picture,  and  say  that 
He  was  capable  of  giving  such  qualities  toward  impressing  such  forces 
on  the  sun,  that  for  countless  ages  it  would  go  on  in  the  production  of 
such  phenomena  as  these? 

Let  us  now  consider  for  a  moment  which  of  these  two  theories  is  the 
most  probably  true?  Remember  that  it  is  the  human  mind,  con- 
stituted as  it  is,  that  is  to  decide  this  question.  Mathematical  axioms 
are  held  to  be  true,  because  they  seem  so,  to  our  minds.  Snow  and 
charcoal  are  held  to  be  of  different  colors,  because  they  necessarily 
appear  so  to  us.  But  it  is  easy  for  us  to  imagine  the  existence  of  a 
mind  which  would  see  these  propositions  to  be  the  opposite  of  the 
truth.  I  repeat,  however,  that  constituted  as  we  are,  our  own  minds 
must  decide  which  of  these  theories  is  the  true  one.  To  determine 
this,  let  these  cases  be  considered.  On  entering  a  room  accompanied 
by  a  scientific  professor,  I  observe  several  books,  among  which  are 
the  works  of  Shakespeare,  Milton,  Byron,  and  others.  On  looking  over 
them,  I  remark  to  my  companion  that  they  appear  to  be  so  accurately 
printed  that,  evidently  they  were  the  work  of  skillful  men.  He  re- 
plies "I  do  not  think  this  at  all  probable,  but  would  rather  account  for 
their  accuracy  in  this  mode.  There  is  a  man  on  the  hill,  who  by  ma- 
chinery^ manufacturing  type  rapidly.  The  letters  fall  from  his  ma- 
chine singly  as  grains  of  wheat  fall  from  the  hopper  of  a  mill,  and 
they  are  picked  up  by  boys  who  cannot  read,  just  as  they  fall,  and  are 
thus  set  up  by  them,  and  impressions  are  made  from  them,  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  all  these  pages  were  thus  printed."  Which  of  these 
two  theories  appears  the  most  probable? 

Or  let  us  take  another  case  which  perhaps  resembles  rather  more 
the  projectile  operations  attributed  to  the  sun.  I  observe  a  thousand 
bottles  filled  with  small  shot,  and  on  examination  it  is  seen  that  there 
are  in  each  of  the  bottles  precisely  ten  thousand  shot.  I  remark  that 
these  bottles  must  have  been  filled  by  very  careful  hands,  to  produce 
such  absolute  equality  in  the  contents  of  each  bottle.  My  companion 
replies  "I  think  you  are  mistaken  in  your  views,  and  that  the  bottles 
were  filled  in  a  very  different  manner.  I  believe  that  these  thousand 
bottles  with  a  view  of  airing  them  well  were  set  out  in  an  open  lot  of 
a  couple  of  acres,  at  random,  and  promiscuously  over  the  ground,  and 
that  they  were  filled  in  the  manner  I  will  describe.  A  man  in  the 
neighborhood  is  fond  of  shooting  for  exercise,  and  for  that  purpose  he 
goes  into  a  street  near  the  lot,  he  there  loads  a  musket  with  small  shot 
and  discharges  it  upward,  but  obliquely,  in  order  that  the  shot  may 
not  fall  on  him.  Though  he  does  not  see  any  of  the  bottles  in  the  open 
field,  for  a  stone  wall  prevents  his  so  doing,  yet  he  discharges  his  mus- 
ket in  such  a  direction  upwards  that  one  shot  falls  into  the  mouth  of  each 


(10) 

bottle.  He  with  his  hand  seemingly  very  carelessly  catches  hold  of 
one  thousand  shot  each  time,  and  thus  one  of  them  at  each  discharge 
falls  into  the  upturned  mouth  of  a  bottle.  After  making  one  hundred 
discharges  he  rests  for  that  day,  and  by  continuing  this  operation  for 
a  hundred  days,  he  fills  all  the  bottles.  No  matter  what  may  be  the 
condition  of  the  atmosphere,  whether  it  be  calm  or  windy,  fair  or  rainy, 
he  never  fails  to  cause  a  shot  to  fall  into  each  bottle.  In  fact  one  day 
when  a  thick  hail  was  falling,  he  so  discharged  his  musket  that  each 
shot  either  missed  the  hail  or  so  glanced  from  it,  as  to  fall  as  usual  into 
the  bottles,  and  thus  they  were  all  filled  as  you  see  them."  Which  of 
these  two  surmises  would  sti  ike  the  human  mind  as  the  most  probable  ? 

Suggestions  like  these  are  calculated  to  assist  us  somewhat  in  decid- 
ing as  to  the  relative  merits  of  the  two  rival  theories,  by  which  we  are 
to  account  for  the  existence  of  the  elements  constituting  the  material 
and  organic  world. 

So  overwhelming  is  the  evidence  in  favor  of  their  being  the  work  of 
a  powerful  intelligence,  that  no  arguments,  however  ingeniously  con- 
structed, will  change  the  opinion  of  any  considerable  portion  of  the 
human  race.  A  man  who  should  fail  to  recognize  such  conclusions 
would  not  be  regarded  as  fit  to  be  entrusted  with  the  ordinary  trans- 
actions of  business  in  the  affairs  of  men. 

I  am  walking  with  a  scientist  and  our  attention  is  attracted  by  a 
lofty  monumental  column.  My  companion  says,  "  What  a  massive 
stone  the  capital  of  that  column  is  ;  it  must  have  required  a  great 
force  to  raise  it."  I  reply,  "  Do  you  think  it  required  a  great  force  to 
raise  it  ?"  "  Certainly,"  he  answered,  "  that  stone  must  weigh  twenty 
tons  and  could  only  have  been  raised  by  a  great  force."  I  answer 
him,  "Then  that  must  have  been  the  greatest  force  that  ever  was 
exerted,  was  it  not  ?"  "  By  no  means,"  he  answers,  "  that  was  nothing 
to  the  force  which  moves  the  earth  on  its  axis."  I  answer  him, 
"  Then  you  say  that  the  force  which  moves  the  earth  is  much  greater; 
was  it  probably  five  times  as  great  as  this?"  "  You  astonish  me,"  he 
replies,  "  the  force  which  moves  the  earth  is  immeasurably  greater." 
At  this  moment  the  professor  struck  his  foot  against  an  object, 
stooped  down  and  picked  it  up.  On  examining  it  he  exclaimed, 
"What  a  beautiful  watch  this  is.  How  could  it  have  gotten  here?" 
I  say  to  him,  "  Perhaps  that  hog,  which  you  see  rooting  the  ground 
near  us,  made  it."  "  What  an  absurd  idea,"  exclaims  the  professor, 
"  why  this  is  such  a  perfect  piece  of  mechanicism  that  it  must  have 
been  made  by  a  most  ingenious  man."  "Then,"  I  answer,  "I  would 
like  to  find  that  man,  for  I  wish  for  a  horse  very  much,  and  as  he  is  so 
ingenious  he  would  doubtless  make  one  for  me."  "  How  laughable 
the  idea,"  exclaims  my  companion,  "  do  you  really  suppose  that  man 
could  make  a  horse?"  "Oh,  Sir,  I  beg  your  pardon  for  my  mistake, 
for  a  horse  is  much  larger  than  the  watch,  but  he  could  make  a  canafey 
bird  for  my  little  sister,  perhaps."  "Make  a  canary  bird  indeed,"  ex- 
claims the  professor,  "  why  he  could  not  make  one  of  its  feathers. 
And  now,  sir,  I  am  sorry  to  be  obliged  to  change  my  mind  about  you. 
As  I  told  you  this  morning,  I  wished  to  engage  you  to  superintend 
my  business,  but  you  must  excuse  my  declining  to  employ  you.     In 


(11) 

the  first  place,  you  did  not  see  at  a  glance  that  it  must  have  required 
force  to  raise  that  stone  to  the  top  of  the  monument,  and  then  did  not 
know  that  the  force  with  which  the  earth  rotates  on  its  axis  was  im- 
measurably greater,  and  then  your  absurd  proposition  that  the  hog 
might  have  made  the  watch,  and  that  a  man  who  had  made  a  watch 
might  be  able  to  make  a  horse,  or  at  least  a  canary  bird.  All  these 
absurdities  satisf}7  me  that  you  cannot  have  sense  enough  to  manage 
any  sort  of  business,  and  therefore  you  must  look  for  employment  from 
some  one  else." 

To  make  the  parallel  complete  however,  the  hog,  in  addition  to  his 
other  qualities,  ought  to  have  been  dead,  so  that  like  the  inanimate 
matter  of  the  sun  he  should  have  possessed  the  potentiality  necessary 
to  enable  him  to  make  the  watch. 

When  these  two  hypothesis  are  thus  compared,  the  human  mind, 
constituted  as  it  is,  cannot  fail  to  decide  that  the  system  around  us  is 
the  work  of  an  intelligent  power,  acting  with  a  purpose  well  under- 
stood. Though  an  individual  here  and  there  may  succeed  in  bringing 
his  mind  to  a  doubt  on  such  a  point,  yet  the  general  judgment  of 
humanity  will  regard  the  proposition  as  being  as  palpably  true  as  any 
axiom  ever  pointed  out,  viz :  that  the  world  around  us  is  the  work  of 
an  intelligent  and  an  omnipotent  Creator. 

We  are  liable,  however,  to  make  a  great  mistake  in  the  opposite  di- 
rection. When  we  observe  and  consider  systems  of  facts  as  laid  before 
us,  we  often  understand  them  so  thoroughly  in  their  bearings  and 
seeming  purposes,  that  we  imagine  we  could  have  anticipated  what 
we  so  clearly  perceive.  And  like  the  Spanish  philosopher,  we  are 
sometimes  tempted  to  think  that  we  could,  if  consulted  in  advance, 
greatly  have  improved  the  system  ourselves.  In  fact,  we  thus  are 
prone  to  exaggerate  our  capacity  to  foresee  and  provide.  To  make 
this  manifest  I  will  present  an  allegorical  picture  calculated  to  illus- 
trate the  truth  of  this  proposition. 

Let  it  be  assumed  that  all  the  animals  and  plants  now  existing  on 
the  earth  were  in  being  as  we  see  them,  but  unchanged  by  man,  and 
that  man  had  not  been  called  into  existence.  Then  in  addition  to  this, 
assume  that  a  mind  existed  with  all  the  faculties  and  knowledge  that 
the  most  scientific  professor  has,  except  that  this  mind  had  no  knowl- 
edge whatever  of  man  or  his  works.  The  mind  is  informed  that  a 
new  animal  is  to  be  created,  which  is  to  be  much  superior  to  any  of 
those  already  created,  and  to  be  capable  of  exercising  dominion  over 
them  all,  and  existing  in  all  the  climates  of  the  earth.  This  mind  is 
given  to  understand  that  the  models  of  the  new  being  are  to  be  pre- 
sented for  its  inspection,  and  that  it  is  to  be  permitted  to  select  the 
most  suitable  one  for  its  future  habitation. 

Full  of  anxiety  and  hope,  the  mind  awaits  the  presentation.  It  has 
placed  before  it  such  a  form  of  man  as  the  Apollo  Belvidere  might 
have  been  'modeled  from.  What  impression  would  this  figure  make 
on  it  ?     We  will  permit  it  to  speak  for  itself. 

"  The  figure  before  me  is  certainly  wonderfully  beautiful,  but  at  the 
same  time  exceedingly  tender  in  its  appearance.  This  must  be  intended 
by  its  deficiencies,  merely  to  prepare  my  mind  for  the  perfect  image 
2 


(12) 

that  is  to  follow  it.  When  I  look  upon  its  parts  they  seem  to  consti- 
tute a  failure  in  every  respect.  It  has  but  two  feet,  and  of  course  it 
stands  much  less  firmly  than  the  four-footed  animals.  When  the  bear 
and  the  monkey  stand  on  two  feet  only  they  are  far  more  easily  thrown 
down  than  when  they  rest  on  all  four  of  their  feet.  This  new  animal 
would  be  falling  constantly  while  it  was  attempting  to  move  about, 
or  struggling  with  an  adversary. 

Again,  when  I  examine  its  feet  they  are  of  the  worst  possible  form  and 
structure.  They  are  entirely  flat,  with  no  capacity  to  hold  on  to  a  limb, 
as  the  bear,  panther,  or  monkey  can  do.  Its  feet  have  even  no  claws 
to  assist  it  in  its  struggle  as  those  of  the  panther  or  tiger  do,  nor  can  it 
strike  effectually,  as  the  horse  does,  an  adversary,  with  its  hind  foot. 
And  then  see  how  tender  they  are.  Even  in  the  warm  climates  of  the 
tropics  the  briars  and  thorns,  to  say  nothing  of  the  reptiles,  would  give 
them  innumerable  wounds,  and  torture  the  animal.  But  how  would 
they  bear  the  ice  and  snow  of  the  Arctic  regions  ?  They  would  be  cut 
to  pieces  by  the  ice  and  frozen  in  the  snow.  Even  if  the  animal  is  not 
to  be  provided  with  the  tough  feet  of  the  polar  bear,  he  should  at  least 
have  been  furnished  with  the  hard  round  hoof  of  the  horse,  or  that  of 
the  goat  or  deer. 

When  I  look  to  the  fore  paws  or  hands  as  they  are  called,  they  are  if 
possible,  even  worse  than  the  feet.  It  is  true  they  possess  some  power 
to  grasp,  but  then  they  present  such  a  failure  in  the  way  of  claws,  that 
they  seem  only  intended  to  make  one  laugh  at  their  absolute  uselessness. 
This  creature  is  not  only  utterly  unprepared  to  struggle  with  the  lions, 
tigers  and  bears,  but  even  the  wolves  and  foxes  would  chew  up  his  ten- 
der paws. 

An  animal  so  deficient  in  feet  and  claws  ought,  to  enable  it  to  make 
any  sort  of  defence,  to  have  been  furnished  with  the  most  tremendous 
mouth.  It  should  have  projected  like  that  of  the  crocodile,  been  armed 
with  the  most  formidable  teeth,  and  possessed  the  powerful  grasp  of  the 
lion's  jaws.  Why  this  mouth  is  an  utter  abortion.  Even  a  racoon  would 
enjoy  eating  that  tender  face.  As  the  animal  is  not  able  to  defend  him- 
self, he  should  at  least  have  been  furnished  with  such  a  muzzle  as  the 
ox  and  sheep  possess,  so  that  he  might  live  on  the  grass  and  other  tender 
herbs,  until  some  of  the  strong  animals  might  come  along  and  devour 
him. 

As  I  gaze  on  him,  each  feature  seems  worse  than  those  already  in- 
spected. What  upon  earth  is  he  to  do  with  that  tender  hide  ?  Even  in 
the  tropics  where  he  might  not  suffer  from  cold,  the  insects  would  render 
his  existence  intolerable.  What  will  become  of  him  in  those  parts  of  Africa, 
where  the  horse  with  his  tough  hide  and  thick  coat  of  hair  is  killed  by 
certain  flies?  Why  this  new  creature  should  at  least  have  been  provided 
with  a  long  and  elastic  tail,  to  assist  him  in  keeping  off  the  flies.  When 
these  stinging  insects  alight  on  his  back  between  his  shoulders,  his  only 
chance  will  be  to  lie  down  on  his  back,  and  the  insects  are  so  numerous 
that  they  will  keep  him  rolling  all  the  while,  with  thorns  and  briars  to 
enliven  his  movements. 

But  then  his  existence  in  the  tropics  will  be  happiness  in  comparison 
with  his  fate  in  the  Arctic  regions.  There  he.  would  be  frozen  to  death 
in  half  an  hour.     To  enable  him  to  exist  in  that  climate  he  should  have 


(13) 

been  provided  with  the  thick  coat  of  the  white  bear  or  the  heavy  wool 
of  the  northern  buffalo.  This,  however,  would  render  his  existence  intol- 
erable in  the  warm  climates.  Possibly  the  best  thing  that  could  have 
been  done  with  such  a  creature  would  have  been  to  cover  him  well  with 
a  thick  coat  of  feathers,  which  he  might,  like  the  goose,  shed  in  warm 
weather.  Instead  of  this  animal  being  fitted  to  live  in  all  climates  and 
dominate  over  all  the  other  creatures,  he  ought  rather  to  be  designated 
as  the  animal  intended  to  constitute  a  delicious  food  for  most  of  the 
others.  The  tigers  and  lions  of  the  tropics  and  the  white  bears  and 
wolves  of  the  arctic  regions,  will  regard  him  as  a  most  tender  and  deli- 
cate food. 

But  I  will  examine  jour  specifications,  and  explanations  of  his  capac- 
ities. You  say  that  though  his  feet  are  tender  yet  he  will  make  shoes 
for  them,  out  of  the  hides  of  deer  and  cows,  so  that  he  will  protect  them 
even  better  than  are  the  feet  of  other  animals  now  existing.  This  state- 
ment is  absolutely  laughable.  He  catch  a  deer  indeed  !  why  he  is  slower 
of  speed  than  any  quadruped  whatever,  except  the  terrapin.  Even  the 
cows  can  outrun  him,  and  if  he  did  succeed  in  overtaking  a  bull,  or  even 
a  cow,  he  would  soon  wish  himself  somewhere  else.  But  suppose  that 
even  by  some  good  luck,  he  could  find  a  dead  cow,  what  could  he  do 
with  its  hide  ?  The  nails  on  what  you  term  his  hands,  would  make  no 
impression  on  that  tough  hide,  nor  could  he  ever  tear  it  with  such  a 
mouth  as  he  has.  Were  he  provided  with  the  teeth  of  the  ground  hog 
he  might  possibly  succeed  in  tearing  off  some  strips  of  the  hide,  but  then 
he  would  have  no  means  of  fastening  them  together,  so  as  to  make  a 
protection  for  those  feet  of  his. 

Then  I  see  that  you  state  that  he  will  provide  a  covering  tor  his  body 
by  planting  and  cultivating  such  things  as  cotton,  hemp  and  flax,  and 
making  clothing  of  them  in  some  mysterious  manner,  and  also  that  he 
will  provide  himself  with  better  food  than  the  cattle,  and  even  the  lions 
and  wolves  can  obtain.  To  effect  this,  you  state  that  he  will  clear  off 
the  trees  and  break  up  and  soften  the  ground,  and  by  the  end  of  the 
year  he  will  have  food  and  clothing.  Of  all  your  absurdities,  this  is 
the  most  preposterous.  How  will  he  remove  a  tree  ?  Even  the  bear 
with  his  strong  teeth  is  only  able  to  tear  off  the  bark,  but  has  never  suc- 
ceeded in  cutting  through  the  body  of  a  single  tree,  much  less  in  clear- 
ing large  spaces  of  land.  If  the  forest  were  even  removed,  how  can  he 
break  up  the  ground  ?  Had  he  been  furnished  with  a  tough  snout  like 
the  hog  he  might  have  made  some  progress  in  that  direction,  but  his 
nose  is  the  worst  for  rooting  hard  ground  I  have  ever  seen,  while  those 
weak  claws  and  tender  fingers  would  be  torn  by  contact  with  the  earth 
and  gravel.  Taking  your  animal  as  a  whole,  if  your  purpose  was,  by 
making  the  most  complete  abortion,  to  throw  the  whole  proposition  into 
ridicule,  you  are  certainly  entitled  to  a  premium.  Everybody  is  obliged 
to  see  that  your  animal  would  starve  to  death  or  be  frozen  an  hundred 
times  before  he  could  complete  the  first  operation  of  cultivating  land 
and  obtaining  a  crop  from  it. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  you  possess  an  imagination  that  is  lively  in 
presenting  absurdities,  but  you  abuse  it  grossly  when  you  suggest  that 
your  new  animals  will  penetrate  the  earth  for  thousands  of  feet  and  ob- 
tain metals  out  of  it  and  make  instruments  harder  than  rock,  with  which 


(14) 

they  will  fight  and  subdue  the  other  beasts.  Indeed,  you  seem  so  absurdly 
silly  that  you  cease  to  be  amusing.  An  animal  that  cannot  scratch  a 
hole  in  the  ground  deep  enough  to  hide  himself,  will  split  open  the  most 
solid  rocks,  penetrate  them  for  miles,  and  obtain  imaginary  substances 
with  which  he  will  perform  fabulous  exploits !  ISTo  extravagance  and 
folly  will  surpass  yours." 

When  we  divest  our  minds  for  the  moment  of  our  acquired  knowl- 
edge and  place  ourselves  in  the  condition  supposed,  is  it  not  evident  that 
the  picture  presented  above  is  similar  to  that  which  the  human  mind 
would  adopt?  Even  with  our  present  knowledge,  does  it  not  seem  diffi- 
cult, and  even  impossible,  for  man  newly  created,  but  without  the  aid 
of  knowledge  derived  from  experience,  to  exist  on  the  earth  ?  Assume 
that  two  or  even  an  hundred  adults  were  brought  into  the  world  as  it 
was  prior  to  man's  existence,  does  it  seem  possible  for  them  to  live  if 
they  were  destitute  of  all  such  knowledge  as  observation  and  experience 
teach?  A  party  of  men  and  women  twenty  years  of  age  find  themselves 
standing  in  a  forest,  with  no  knowledge  of  the  vegetable  and  animal 
world  except  what  they  see  before  their  eyes.  If  they  think  of  eating, 
the}'  know  not  which  of  the  innumerable  things  they  see  to  take  hold 
of  or  attempt  to  swallow.  By  sight  or  even  taste,  if  they  strive  to  eat, 
they  could  not  distinguish  nutritious  vegetables  from  those  that  were 
injurious.  Even  if  they  were  standing  on  the  shore  of  the  sea,  they 
would  not  know  that  by  wading  into  the  shallow  water  oysters  might  be 
picked  up  and  broken  open  and  eaten  raw,  rather  than  the  pebbles  that 
might  be  lying  along  the  shore.  With  no  food  provided  and  with  no 
knowledge  to  enable  them  to  seek  it,  and  dangerous  enemies  around 
them,  from  the  stinging  insect  to  the  formidable  lion,  could  such  beings 
have  existed  ?  Even  if  human  infants  had  been  created,  their  condition 
would  be  only  the  more  helpless.  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
bears  or  monkeys  would  have  kept  them  alive,  instead  of  eating  them. 
Even  if  they  had  been  so  kept,  their  foster  mothers  could  only  have 
taught  them  such  knowledge  as  these  animals  possess  themselves.  Such 
a  supposition  is  too  absurd  to  be  thought  of  as  a  possibility.  As  the 
creation  of  a  human  infant  would  of  itself  be  as  much  a  miracle  as  that 
of  the  adult,  nothing  could  be  gained  for  any  class  of  scientists  by  the 
substitution  of  this  view. 

As  to  the  Darwinian  theory,  but  for  the  fact  that  some  few  persons  of 
scientific  reputation  have  spoken  favorably  of  it,  it  is  not  plausible 
enough  to  justify  attack.  It  is  said  they  find  a  stumbling  block  in  their 
failure  to  discover  the  missing  link  between  the  man  and  the  monkey. 
As,  however,  the  animal  constituting  this  link  was  much  more  recent  in 
its  existence  than  the  previous  ones  which  are  found,  the  remains  of  such 
an  animal  ought  to  be  the  most  numerous.  In  fact,  there  should  have 
been  at  least  one  hundred  such  links  to  bring  the  monkey  up  to  the  man, 
instead  of  a  single  one.  We  should  have  had  a  monkey  with  one  human 
finger  and  an  additional  inch  of  brain,  and  so  on  in  succession,  each 
addition  requiring  a  miracle  or  change  from  the  usual  order  of  nature. 
If  a  sow  should  produce  one  puppy  in  a  litter  of  pigs,  why  should  not 
this  be  regarded  as  being  as  clearly  a  miracle  as  if  she  had  produced  a 
whole  brood  of  puppies  or  young  ducks.  As  to  the  Darwinian  theory, 
I  have  in  a  former  publication  stated  the  proposition,  that  the  theory  is 


(  15) 

improable  in  itself,  without  a  single  fact  to  support  it,  and  to  which 
every  known  fact  bearing  any  relation  to  the  subject  is  directly  hostile. 
The  Darwinians,  instead  of  being  positive  philosophers  who  rely  only 
on  observed  facts,  as  they  claim  to  do,  are  the  most  credulous  of  human 
beings.  .Gulliver's  Travels  and  the  stories  in  the  Arabian  Night's  Enter- 
tainments seem  probabilities,  and  mere  matter  of  fact  narratives,  in  com- 
parison with  the  most  plausible  arguments  and  fancies  of  the  Dar- 
winian evolutionists. 

Constituted  as  the  human  mind  is,  are  we  not  obliged  to  decide  that 
man  when  created  must  have  been  furnished  with  some  knowledge  of 
his  own  powers  and  of  certain  information  as  to  the  qualities  and  capac- 
ities of  the  things  around  him  ?  Are  we  not  forced  by  reason  itself  to 
adopt  such  a  hypothesis  as  that  given  in  the  Mosaic  account  of  man's 
creation  ? 

While  the  inferior  animals  have  been  furnished  with  the  instinctive 
knowledge  necessary  to  enable  them  to  exist,  they  seem  incapable,  in 
their  successive  generations,  of  making  any  considerable  accumulations 
of  knowledge.  But  man  wben  first  called  into  existence  appears  to 
know  nothing,  and  yet  is  capable  of  indefinite  increase  of  his  knowledge 
and  intellectual  powers. 

Having  seen  what  he  appears  to  have  been  when  first  called  into  ex- 
istence, let  us  look  at  the  other  end  of  his  progress.  A  large,  eight 
paged  New  York  Daily  Newspaper,  can  be  printed  anil  delivered  at  the 
rate  of  fifty  thousand  copies  in  a  single  hour.  Consider  how  much  men- 
tal and  mechanical  action  were  called  into  play  to  produce  this  result. 
To  prepare  the  band  of  white  paper,  miles  in  length  itself,  brought  com- 
plicated mechanism  into  play.  To  produce  the  types,  demanded  the 
skill  of  the  metallurgist  and  the  artisan.  Then  how  much  brain  and 
hand  work  were  employed  in  perfecting  the  powerful  and  most  compli- 
cated machinery,  which,  in  its  action,  surpassed  in  accuracy  and  precis- 
ion the  skillful  movements  of  the  cunning  human  hand  !  And  still  it 
did  not  become  weary,  or  stagger,  or  pause  for  breath  while  doing  alone 
the  work  of  several  hundred  men.  Next  think  of  the  rail  roads  that 
were  giving  aid  to  the  movement.  To  obtain  the  iron  from  the  elements 
with  which  it  was  entangled,  and  by  vast  and  intricate  machinery  to  roll 
it  into  the  bars  that  support  the  powerful  and  complicated  locomotive 
engines,  which  aid  the  operation  required  immense  thought  and  labor. 
The  later  provided  telegraph  wires,  and  electrical  apparatus,  seem  to 
complete  the  mechanical  part  of  the  enterprise.  Contemplation  of  the 
result  fills  us  with  wonder  and  pride.  When  we  attempt  to  bring  into 
view  the  vast  and  varied  intellectual  and  mechanical  action  that  has 
produced  such  a  result,  it  is  not  strange  that  we  should  exaggerate  the 
capacity  of  the  human  intellect. 

This  feeling  rapidly  subsides  when  we  look  backward  and  see  how 
slow  the  progress  has  been.  Does  it  not  seem  strange  that  Aristotle  and 
Archimedes,  Lucullus  and  Julius  Csesar  did  not  discover  the  convenience 
of  using  chimne37s  in  houses,  and  pantaloons  in  dress  ?  The  fact  that 
the  modern  inhabitants  of  Greece  and  Italy  so  generally  use  them  proves 
that  their  ancestors  only  lacked  a  knowledge  of  their  utility  and  the 
modes  of  producing  them. 


(  16) 

Immense  as  has  been  human  progress,  it,  nevertheless,  seems  to  have 
been  made  slowly,  and  step  by  step.  We  readily  see  that  a  step  may  be 
taken  from  the  point  where  we  stand,  but  fail  to  perceive  how  we  are 
to  pa9s  over  ocean  and  mountain  until  we  have  made  the  circuit  of  the 
globe.  We  have  made,  however,  an  intellectual  upward  progress  which 
seems  unlimited,  in  strange  contrast  with  the  ficticious  Darwinian  theory 
of  material  evolution.  While  neither  man  nor  any  other  animal  has 
been  able  to  add  a  new  physical  member  or  organ  to  his  body,  thought 
evolves  thought,  and  we  cannot  see  what  is  to  be  the  limit  of  man's  in- 
tellectual progress. 

Before  the  forests  and  coal  fields  of  the  earth  shall  have  been  ex- 
hausted, it  seems  probable  that  there  will  be  discovered  some  simple 
and  cheap  mode  of  decomposing  that  abundant  element,  water,  so  that 
we  may  be  furnished  with  better  fuel  and  lights  than  we  now  enjoy. 
Ere  the  iron  mines  are  worked  out,  we  shall,  perhaps,  with  more  fa- 
cility than  cast  iron  is  now  produced,  obtain  from  the  clays  and  cer- 
tain abundant  rocks  the  light  and  handsome  metal,  aluminum.  It 
may  serve  a  better  purpose  than  iron  does  in  the  construction  of  ships 
and  houses,  and  by  amalgamations  not  yet  known,  may  surpass  steel 
itself,  as  the  ancients,  by  mixtures  of  soft  metals,  obtained  their  razors 
and  other  cutting  instruments. 

The  great  positive  philosopher,  M.  Comte,  once  said,  that  as  the 
perfection  of  religion  was  the  tracing  of  all  to  one  Supreme  God,  so 
the  end  to  be  sought  in  material  science  is  the  being  able  to  refer  all 
its  phenomena  to  one  great  cause,  as,  for  example,  the  force  of  gravity. 
But  certain  facts  have  been  observed  that  tend  to  incline  the  mind  to 
believe  that  there  is  some  strange  influence  or  power  in  Nature  that 
may  suspend  or  counteract  the  force  of  gravity  itself.  May  it  not  be 
possible  that  we  shall  in  time  trace  not  only  magnetic  attraction,  but 
the  force  of  gravity  also,  to  that  mysterious  agent  which  we  term  elec- 
tricity? When  we  observe  its  action  on  inanimate  substances  and  all 
vegetable  and  animal  existences,  we  are  unable  to  set  bounds  to  its 
influence  and  its  power.  And  should  we  obtain  such  a  control  of  its 
action  as  to  use  it  to  suspend  at  our  will  the  power  of  the  force  of 
gravity,  such  a  result  does  not  strike  our  minds  as  being  more  extra- 
ordinary than  a  century  ago  would  the  suggestion  of  certain  recent 
discoveries.  To  the  philosophers  of  that  day,  the  electric  telegraph, 
the  telephone  and  the  phonograph  would  have  seemed  the  propo- 
sitions of  the  wildest  imagination.  That  two  persons  situated  on  op- 
posite sides  of  the  earth  should  hold  a  conversation  by  the  aid  of 
lightning,  and  even  hear  each  other's  voices,  as  they  can  in  the  tele- 
phone, would  have  been  regarded  as  more  improbable  than  the  story 
of  Aladdin's  Lamp. 

Stranger  even  still,  would  have  seemed  the  phonograph.  That  songs 
and  conversations  could  be  laid  away  for  preservation,  and  "at  will, 
years  afterwards,  be  reproduced  and  repeated  in  their  very  tones  by 
material  machinery,  would  have  been  regarded  as  certainly  miraculous. 

When  the  great  progress  made  already  is  contemplated,  our  minds 
are  so  excited  that  we  may  anticipate  an  unlimited  upward  progress 
in  a  continued  and  eternal  existence. 


(  17) 

What  conclusions  shall  we  draw  from  such  considerations  as  have 
been  presented  ?  That  each  professor  of  science  is  to  be  trusted  in 
that  line  of  study  in  which  he  has  been  specially  engaged.  But  we 
must  remember  that  the  closer  his  application  to  a  single  branch,  the 
less  time  is  he  able  to  give  to  other  subjects.  As  the  penetrative  power 
of  the  telescope  is  increased  by  excluding  light  from  its  sides,  so  does 
close  application  to  a  single  class  of  objects  diminish  the  opportunities 
to^acquire  general  knowledge. 

It  is  sometimes,  however,  boastfully  said,  that  science  embraces  all 
knowledge  in  its  range.  But  what  man  has  been  able  to  comprehend 
it  in  all  its  extent?  One  may  be  a  good  chemist,  and  know  little  of 
astronomy ;  a  first-rate  mineralogist  may  be  but  slightly  acquainted 
with  mechanical  forces.  In  proportion,  however,  as  a  man's  acquain- 
tance with  many  branches  is  extended,  so  will  be  his  general  knowl- 
edge and  judgment.  Sir  Isaac  Newton  excelled  in  this  respect.  Had 
Lord  Bacon  passed  his  life  in  a  laboratory,  it  is  not  probable  that  he 
would  have  made  the  great  impression  on  the  philosophy  of  the  age 
in  which  he  lived  that  he  actually  did  produce.  His  being  a  great 
lawyer  and  statesman  gave  expansion,  clearness  and  force  to  his  views 
of  science.  In  fact,  it  is  the  greatness  of  his  mind  that  strikes  us 
most,  rather  than  the  amount  of  his  actual  knowledge. 

By  learning  two  things,  a  man  does  much  more  than  double  his 
knowledge.  Perhaps  the  most  important  of  all  the  intellectual  facul- 
ties is  that  of  comparison,  or  conditionality  as  it  was  called  by 
George  Combe,  the  great  phrenologist.  By  perceiving  that  a  similar 
condition  exists  in  many  objects,  we  discover  a  general  resemblance,  or 
principle  which  extends  through  them  all.  As  a  lawyer,  by  examin- 
ing precedents,  seeks  to  find  a  general  principle  which  runs  through 
the  cases,  so  the  true  scientist  examines  facts  to  be  able  to  make  gene- 
ralization. Newton  might  in  vain  have  observed  the  fall  of  the  apple 
and  the  motions  of  the  moon,  if  he  had  not  possessed  a  faculty  that 
enabled  him  to  compare  their  conditions,  and  deduce  the  conclusions 
that  they  were  acted  upon  by  a  certain  general  influence,  which  he 
designated  as  the  law  of  gravity.  The  greater  the  number  of  facts 
which  one  can  embrace  in  his  view,  the  more  likely  will  he  be  to 
discover  the  true  principles  involved,  and  to  establish  a  sound  system. 

This  proposition  being  conceded,  it  is  important  that  every  one 
should  endeavor  to  know  as  much  as  possible,  provided  always,  that 
he  makes  that  knowledge  his  own.  As  the  stomach  should  receive 
only  as  much  food  as  it  can  digest,  so  the  mind  should  take  hold  only 
of  what  it  can  understand,  and  make  its  own.  By  taking  a  wide  range 
but  embracing  only  the  large  ideas  of  many  subjects,  a  man  will  vastly 
increase  his  general  intellectual  power. 

On  the  other  hand  narrowness  of  view  often  produces  overweening 
conceit,  even  among  scientists,  as  they  call  themselves. 

I  once  presented  to  a  professor  of  eminence,  a  paper  describing  cer- 
tain singular  natural  phenomena.  He  seemed  much  interested  and 
surprised  at  the  novelty  of  some  of  the  facts,  and  said  he  would  like 
to  publish  them  if  I  would  strike  out  some  suggestions  made  as  to  the 
probable  causes   of  the  phenomena.     I  said  that  by  references  to   a 


(18) 

probable  cause  I  could  make  the  facts  better  understood.  He  answered, 
that  as  I  was  not  a  professor,  I  could  not  be  permitted  to  give  an 
opinion  as  to  the  causes  of  the  phenomena. 

The  late  Dr.  Charles  T.  Jackson,  of  Boston,  eminent  as  he  was,  did 
not  entertain  so  great  a  regard  for  the  title  of  professor.  Some  few 
years  before  his  death  I  said  to  him,  "  Do  you  prefer  to  be  called  Doctor 
or  Professor ?"  He  answered,  "Doctor,  by  all  means,  for  every  pre- 
tender and  mountebank  is  now  calling  himself  Professor."  Should 
the  barbers  and  bootblacks  call  themselves  professors,  they  may 
remind  us  of  "  Chess  Congresses  and  Billiard  Tournaments."  If  great 
names  could  elevate  trifling  things,  "  Caesar  and  Washington  "  would 
not  so  frequently  be  found  in  the  penitentiary. 

So  great  has  been  the  progress  of  modern  science,  and  so  vast  have 
been  the  benefits  it  has  conferred  on  the  world,  that  its  genuine  devo- 
tees can  well  afford  to  laugh  at  the  criticisms  and  the  foibles  of  its 
weaker  brethren.  The  tendency  of  modern  positive  science  however, 
to  exclude  to  a  great  extent  such  ideas  as  are  not  evident  to  the  senses, 
is  to  be  regretted.  It  thus  often  happens  that  palpable  conclusions 
are  liable  to  be  ignored. 

When  I  observe  that  a  boy  is  walking  in  the  snow  with  shoes  on,  it 
does  not  require  a  great  strain  of  the  reasoning  faculties  to  enable  me 
to  decide,  that  in  giving  him  shoes,  the  purpose  of  his  father  was,  to 
protect  his  feet  from  the  cold  snow.  In  like  manner  we  see  that  men 
and  other  animals  exist  on  the  earth,  and  that  water  and  air,  and  veg- 
etation of  various  kinds  also  are  provided.  When  we  see  that  men  and 
beasts  live  by  reason  of  these  other  elements,  does  it  not  seem  a  reason- 
able conclusion  that  in  creating  these  things,  it  was  the  -purpose  of  the 
creative  power  to  provide  them,  in  order  that  animal  existence  and 
comfort  might  be  maintained  ! 

Again,  when  we  look  into  the  moral  world,  we  see  that  man  posesses 
intelligence,  selfishness,  love  of  offspring,  friendship,  benevolence,  love, 
and  also  a  sense  of  right  and  wrong,  or  duty,  and  a  conviction  that  he 
is  responsible  to  some  higher  power  for  his  conduct.  Such  elements 
as  these  constitute  human  society.  Strip  man  of  all  sense  of  right  or 
obligation,  and  organized  society,  such  as  we  term  civilization,  will 
cease  to  exist.  Go  further  and  deprive  him  of  friendship  and  love,  and 
he  may  be  as  selfish,  and  far  more  cunning  than  the  fox.  Divest  him 
of  his  philoprogenitiveness  or  love  of  offspring,  and  the  race  ceases  to 
exist.  When  the  creative  power  gave  man  all  those  qualities,  which 
are  necessary  to  constitute  society,  as  we  see  it  around  us,  can  we  doubt 
but  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  that  creative  power  to  organize  such  a 
system  ? 

The  sense  of  obligation  and  accountability  to  a  higher  power,  is  just 
as  essential  to  the  existence  of  a  well  ordered  human  society,  as  the 
law  of  gravity  is  to  the  material  world.  If  that  law  were  destroyed, 
we  not  only  would  be  unable  to  move  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  but 
would  even  cease  to  retain  our  places  on  its  surface.  Its  centrifugal 
motion  would  cause  the  water,  the  atmosphere  and  all  unattached  ma- 
terials to  be  thrown  off  into  space.  Even  the  earth  itself,  ceasing  to 
revolve  about  the  sun,  would  move  on  in  the  line  of  a  tangent  to  its 


(  19) 

orbit,  and  pass  away  into  darkness.     In  like  manner,  but  for  the  great 
moral  law  of  duty,  human  society  would  cease  to  exist  on  the  earth. 

This  being  evident  to  all  who  reflect  deeply,  it  seems  strange  that 
any  man  of  scientific  attainments  should  seek  to  weaken  in  the  human 
mind  the  sense  of  accountability  to  a  supreme  power.  Erroneous 
views  uncontradicted,  often  work  an  immense  amount  of  mischief.  An 
atheistical  journal  published  and  circulated  fifteen  years  ago  in  Rus- 
sia, is  represented  to  have  spread  its  virus  most  extensively  in  that 
great  empire.  It  would  seem  as  if  the  doctrine  of  the  "Nihilists" 
were  penetrating  all  classes  of  society.  This  sect,  among  its  votaries, 
embraces  professors  in  the  high  schools,  nobles  who  have  been  impov- 
erished by  the  loss  of  their  serfs,  army  officers  generally,  fathers  of 
families,  and  even  young  girls.  These  last  are  particularly  fanatical, 
and  most  earnest  in  making  proselytes,  according  to  the  official  report 
of  the  Minister  of  Justice,  and  their  combined  efforts  are  producing  a 
general  dissolution  of  morals.  Their  aim  is  the  destruction  of  "all 
States,  all  religions,  all  subordination,  and  the  re-establishment  of  chaos, 
as  the  prelude  to  making  everything  over,  anew."  The  Minister  of 
Justice  in  his  report  to  the  Emperor  on  the  Nihilist  trials  writes,  that 
"  the  government  is  powerless  to  arrest  the  current  of  these  subversive 
doctrines,  growing  out  of  the  dissolution  of  morals,  and  finally,  of  the 
complete  absence  of  religious  principles."  The  alarming  spread  of 
these  doctrines  is  attributable  to  the  general  ignorace  of  the  people, 
and  the  degraded  condition  of  the  Russian  church,  which  from  its  ig- 
norance and  demoralization,  can  make  no  effectual  resistance  to  doc- 
trines that  seem  about  to  destroy  society,  as  now  existing  in  that  im- 
mense Empire. 

Such  an  example  as  this  ought  to  awaken  us  to  another  great  con- 
sideration. If  the  progress  of  science  furnishes  new  arguments  and 
weapons  to  the  infidel,  must  not  a  wider  and  more  extended  knowledge 
in  like  manner  aid  the  friends  of  morality  and  religion,  without  which 
society  cannot  be  maintained  ?  In  the  middle  ages  our  English  ances- 
tors were  able  to  defend  themselves  with  bows  and  arrows,  but  now  all 
nations  are  obliged  to  use  the  improved  implements  of  modern  war- 
fare. As  we  cannot  now  defend  ourselves  without  the  use  of  rifles  and 
cannon,  so  has  it  become  the  duty  of  the  friends  of  morality  and  relig- 
ion to  acquaint  themselves  with  the  advanced  views  of  scientific  phi- 
losophy. A  skillful  general  in  war  seeks  to  discover  the  positions  of  his 
adversary,  in  order  that  he  may  be  able  to  strike  him  with  effect.  The 
physician,  to  relieve  his  patient  of  pain,  endeavors  to  ascertain  what 
organ  in  his  system  is  diseased,  before  he  applies  a  remedy.  In  like 
manner  it  is  the  duty  of  public  teachers  to  acquaint  themselves  with 
the  weapons  and  movements  of  their  adversaries. 

It  is  said,  however,  by  way  of  apology  for  clergymen,  that  their 
whole  time  is  required  to  be  devoted  to  the  study  of  theological  wri- 
tings. No  greater  mistake  can  be  made  than  this.  A  man  might 
occupy  his  whole  life  in  reading  about  hor-es,  without  knowing  as 
much  of  them  as  one  could,  who,  after  a  few  hours  reading  about 
them,  should  spend  only  a  week  in  examining  and  using  them  so  as 
to  learn  their  qualities. 
3 


(20) 

There  has  been  much  controversy  as  to  whether  it  was  most  advan- 
tageous to  man  to  acquire  a  classical  or  a  scientific  education.  We 
might,  with  as  much  propriety,  debate  the  point,  whether  a  man's 
eyes  or  his  ears  were  most  advantageous  in  enabling  him  to  acquire 
knowledge,  or  whether  the  right  or  left  leg  was  most  useful  to  a  soldier 
in  marching.  A  man  may  observe  many  things  himself,  but  he 
vastly  increases  his  stock  of  knowledge  by  reading,  so  as  to  add  to  his 
own  the  knowledge  of  others.  A  mere  observer  might  learn  some 
things  well,  while  he  who  depended  on  the  words  of  others  might 
obtain  a  wide  range  of  ideas,  and  yet  know  nothing  thoroughly.  To 
become  really  wise,  men  must  study  both  things  and  the  opinions  of 
others  also,  whose  observations  and  ideas  will  assist  them.  Society 
presents  us  with  few  weaker  and  more  useless  men  than  some  who 
obtain  the  reputation  of  being  learned  because  they  can  repeat  much 
of  what  they  have  read. 

It  is  clear  that  if  clergymen  wish  to  combat  error  successfully  in 
their  sermons,  they  must  understand  the  theories  and  methods  of  their 
more  dangerous  adversaries.  In  addition  to  studying  the  views  of 
men  who  have  written  learnedly  on  theological  subjects,  every  clergy- 
man should  find  time  to  read  such  books,  for  example,  as  Lyell's  Prin- 
ciples of  Geology,  Humboldt's  Cosmos,  and  other  works  of  like  char- 
acter. Thus  the  scope  of  his  intellect  will  be  greatty  enlarged,  his 
knowledge  become  more  precise  and  accurate,  and  he  will  improve 
his  methods  of  presenting  his  ideas.  Mere  dialectic  discourses  seldom 
produce  a  permanent  impression  on  an  audience,  nor  do  they  tend 
greatly  to  extend  knowledge. 

To  show  the  effect  of  different  systems  on  human  society,  historical 
examples  may  be  appealed  to.  How  striking  is  the  contrast  between 
the  great  Roman  Republic,  with  the  religious  feelings  generally  preva- 
lent among  its  citizens,  and  the  later  Empire,  after  scepticism  had 
become  general.  Compare  the  vigor  of  the  early  Mussulman  move- 
ments, impelled  as  they  were  by  religious  fanaticism,  with  modern 
Turkey.  To  know  what  human  society  becomes  without  religion,  we 
have  but  to  turn  our  eyes  to  France,  when,  less  than  a  century  ago, 
the  Goddess  of  Reason  was  placed  on  the  throne. 

Some  act  as  though  they  feared  that  a  comparison  of  material  and 
moral  systems  might  tend  to  overthrow  religion,  as  if  the  Supreme 
Being  had  not  sufficient  knowledge  and  power  to  preserve  consistency 
in  the  order  of  the  universe.  If  this,  in  fact,  were  true,  of  course  the 
enemies  of  religion  would  be  willing  to  make  the  discovery  and  be 
ready  to  avail  themselves  of  its  advantages.  But  in  fact,  it  is  only  a 
"  little  philosophy,"  as  Bacon  states  it,  that  "  inclineth  men's  minds  to 
atheism,"  or,  as  Pope  says,  "  a  little  learning  is  a  dangerous  thing." 

A  thorough  examination  of  both  the  material  and  moral  systems 
shows  such  a  complete  harmony  that  they  stand  together  and  consti- 
tute a  system  so  vast  and  grand  as  to  fill  the  human  mind  with  satis- 
faction, wonder  and  sublimity  of  conception. 

Before  concluding,  it  may  be  proper  that  something  should  be  said 
as  to  the  best  mode  of  conveying  information.  In  the  first  place,  a 
man  must  have  distinct  and  clear  ideas  before  he  can  convey  such  to 


(21) 

his  auditors.  Few  mistakes  are  more  frequently  made  by  the  igno- 
rant, than  the  supposition  that  a  man  is  deep  because  he  is  obscure. 
A.  person  once  said  to  me,  after  using  certain  vague  expressions,  "  If 
I  only  had  learning,  as  you  have,  I  could  express  great  ideas  which  I 
have  in  my  head."  In  fact,  it  was  the  mistiness  and  obscurity  of  his 
ideas  that  rendered  him  unable  to  express  them  intelligibly.  On 
matters  connected  with  his  farming  operations,  which  he  understood 
well,  he  expressed  himself  very  clearly. 

When  it  is  stated  that  some  orator  took  an  exhaustive  plunge  into 
some  subject  so  deep  that  his  audience  could  not  follow  him,  it  should 
have  merely  been  said  that  he  performed  an  evolution  like  that  of  the 
frog,  which,  by  leaping  into  a  shallow  spring  and  kicking  up  the  mud, 
rendered  it  impossible  that  either  he  or  the  bottom  should  be  seen. 
All  intellectual  ideas  that  a  man  has  distinctly  in  his  mind  may  be 
intelligibly  expressed  with  ordinary  powers  of  language. 

It  is  otherwise,  however,  as  to  feelings  and  passions.  It  is  often  dif- 
ficult for  one  to  give  an  adequate  idea  of  an  emotion,  becauso  the  sen- 
timents and  feelings  var}r  much  in  different  persons.  The  intensity  of 
feeling  varies  so  much  in  different  individuals,  that  one  person  mpy 
have  sentiments  and  emotions  which  he  finds  it  impossible  to  express 
clearly  and  strongly  in  language  to  others. 

In  the  second  place,  one  must  possess  a  fair  command  of  language 
in  order  that  he  may  easily  make  himself  fully  understood.  Though 
pe  sons  differ  in  their  powers  in  this  respect,  yet  it  is  seldom  that  we 
find  a  man  who  is  unable  to  convey  clearly  what  he  well  understands. 
Much  of  the  obscurity  of  speakers  is  due  to  a  sort  of  vanity,  which 
causes  them  to  pile  up  great  masses  of  words  that,  like  an  empty 
bladder  when  it  is  burst,  give  much  noise  without  substance.  By 
tricks  of  this  kind,  certain  men  occasionally  lead  the  ignorant  into  the 
opinion  that  they  are  wise. 

The  fewer  words  that  are  needed  and  used  to  express  the  idea,  the 
better  for  the  hearer,  just  as  it  is  easier  to  find  the  wheat  after  it  has 
been  thrashed  than  while  it  is  mixed  with  the  chaff.  In  the  choice 
of  words,  too,  to  obtain  clearness  and  force,  it  is  well  to  use,  when 
practicable,  the  Anglo-Saxon  words,  because  as  we  in  early  life  are 
accustomed  to  them,  they  convey  at  once  the  most  striking  images. 
On  the  other  hand,  when  we  wish  to  express  an  idea  delicately,  as  a 
lady  sometimes,  to  help  the  imagination  of  the  beholder,  partially 
veils  her  charms,  phrases  from  the  Latin  or  French  may  be  used. 

To  impress  the  minds  of  auditors  strongly,  however,  should  be  the 
main  purpose  of  public  speakers.  Men  of  great  ideas  can  afford  to  be 
simple  in  expression,  as  a  perfect  form  can  well  challenge  observation. 
The  praise  bestowed  on  Csesar's  style  dates  back  to  early  times.  Thiers, 
in  discussing  the  style  of  Napoleon,  so  wonderfully  striking  and  im- 
pressive, said  that  in  his  case  "  there  was  nothing  between  the  word 
and  the  thought."  Feeble  and  pretentious  men,  when  they  happen 
to  have  found  a  thought  of  some  value  envelope  it  in  so  many  words 
in  their  effort  to  magnify  it,  and  spread  it  so  thin,  that  the  auditors 
are  wearied  and  disgusted,  as  a  child  handles  and  turns  over  his  toy 
until  he  tires  of  it.     It  was  said  of  Demosthenes,  that  he  never  went 


(22) 

back  to  the  ground  that  he  had  utterly  wasted  as  he  passed  over  it  in 
his  rapid  onward  progress.  The  highest  evidence  of  a  speaker's  ora- 
torical power  is,  that  after  he  has  filled  the  minds  of  his  audience  with 
a  great  thought,  before  they  have  had  time  to  fully  master  and  meas- 
ure it,  and  while  they  are  still  filled  with  wonder  and  surprise  at  its 
vastness,  he  hurries  them  on  to  another  and  another  like  it  in  its  pro- 
portions. Sometimes,  too,  a  great  idea,  merely  glanced  at,  and  a  great 
feeling,  dimly  presented,  lift  the  imaginations  and  the  feelings  of 
the  audience  to  a  pitch  of  excitement  that  carries  them  irresistibly 
forward.  To  enable  a  man  to  do  this,  and  at  the  same  time  make  a 
permanent  impression,  he  must,  however,  by  proper  presentations  to 
the  intellect,  have  satisfied  the  judgment  of  his  auditors.  Unless 
this  has  been  done,  the  effect  is  evasnescent,  for  unless  intellectual 
images  are  connected  with  the  feeling,  it  cannot  have  permanency  and 
well  retain  its  place  in  the  mind. 

Again,  it  must  be  understood  that  mere  dialectic  discourses,  in 
which  successions  of  abstract  propositions  are  stated,  are  not  only 
rather  tiresome  to  the  audiences,  but  they  fail  to  make  a  lasting  im- 
pression. It  is  often  difficult  to  remember  long,  a  proposition  which 
seems  intelligible  at  the  moment  while  we  are  listening  to  it.  Hence 
the  importance  of  using  illustrations  as  figures  of  speech,  parables,  &c. 
The  four  gospels  of  the  New  Testament,  the  best  model  I  know  of  for 
the  student,  abound  in  such  illustrations. 

By  using  a  proper  figure  we  cannot  only  give  greater  distinctness 
to  the  idea,  but  we  enable  the  hearer  to  retain  it  in  his  mind.  In  this 
manner  an  illiterate  person  will  for  years  be  able  to  reproduce  the 
substance  of  an  idea,  because  the  figure  used  to  illustrate  it  will  retain 
the  proposition  in  his  memory.  On  the  other  hand,  a  man  after 
having  been  harangued  for  three  hours  by  a  different  kind  of  speaker, 

will  tell  his  neighbors  "Mr. made  a  mighty  long  speech,  no 

doubt  it  was  mighty  great,  but  he  talked  so  much  that  I  cannot  re- 
member what  he  said."  After  listening  to  such  a  speech  the  audience 
has  merely  a  recollection  of  a  disagreeable  entertainment. 

A  contrary  practice  has,  however,  recently  grown  into  use  among 
certain  political  speakers.  Seeing  that  in  many  instances  a  felicitous  illus- 
tration or  anecdote  has  produced  a  fine  effect,  they  imagine  that  good 
speaking  consists  in  amusing  au  audience  by  relating  what  are  usually 
called  anecdotes.  These  may  be  legitimately  used  for  two  purposes. 
In  the  first  place  a  tired  audience  may  be  relieved  by  a  laugh  at  a 
good  story  properly  told.  Secondly,  these  anecdotes,  if  .judiciously 
applied  to  illustrate  a  proposition,  or  a  hit  on  an  adversary,  give  great 
effect  to  a  speech.  Flowers  and  music  are  appropriate  adjuncts  to  a 
feast,  but  they  of  themselves  do  not  satisfy  hungry  guests.  In  like 
manner  a  so-called  speech,  which  is  mainly  made  of  jokes,  produces 
no  impression  on  the  audience  that  might  not  be  more  strikingly 
caused  by  the  antics  and  ludicrous  falls  of  the  clown  Fox  in  Humpty 
Dumpty.  Though  the  audience  has  been  pleasantly  entertained  and 
will  afterwards  feel  rather  grateful  to  the  speaker  for  the  entertainment, 
yet  no  political  impression  has  been  made  on  it. 


(23) 

I  recall  a  striking  instance  of  this.  In  1844  I  attended  a  Whig 
barbecue  at  Knoxville,  Tennessee  The  morning  speeches  had  been 
made  by  the  Hon.  John  Bell  and  myself,  and  the  large  audience  had 
partaken  of  the  barbecue.  On  our  return  to  the  stand  a  gentleman 
of  high  position  spoke  for  nearly  three  hours  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
keep  us  in  excellent  humor  and  created  almost  incessant  laughter,  and 
we  broke  up  in  the  best  spirits.  On  the  next  morning  Senator  Spencer 
Jernagan  spoke  for  two  hours  to  a  very  attentive  audience,  without, 
however,  even  causing  a  smile  in  the  vast  assembly.  After  he  con- 
cluded, a  prominent  Tennessee  politician  said  to  me,  referring  to  Jer- 
nagan, "he  is  the  man  that  we  owe  the  revolution  in  East  Tennessee 
to."  I  asked,  enquiring  if  the  gentleman  who  had  spoken  the  evening 
before  did  not  help  also.  He  replied,  "  No ;  he  is  a  fine  man  for  a 
rally,  but  he  never  makes  us  a  vote." 

In  1860  I  was  present  at  a  barbecue  at  which  a  young  gentleman 
occupied  most  of  the  day.  He  possessed  a  good  memory,  had  learned 
almost  all  of  the  anecdotes  that  were  retailed  during  that  campaign, 
and  rehearsed  them  amusingly  After  he  finished  in  the  evening,  an 
intelligent  gentleman  remarked  to  me,  "  this  day  has  been  completely 
lost  to  us."  He  was  right  in  his  view.  Had  a  good  band  played 
pleasant  airs  the  assembly  would  have  been  as  highty  entertained, 
and  just  as  decided  a  political  impression  would  have  been  made  on  it. 

In  1872  I  had  an  amusing  illustration  of  the  downward  tendenc}' 
produced  by  the  fashion  now  so  much  in  vogue.  A  young  man  whose 
opportunities  to  acquire  an  education  had  been  limited,  but  who  had 
commenced  the  study  of  the  law,  said  to  me,  "  General,  I  wish  to  learn 
how  you  great  Senators  used  to  do  in  the  Senate.  I  wish  particularly 
to  hear  about  Mr.  Webster ;  was  he  not  a  mighty  man  on  an  anec- 
dote ?"  The  question  struck  me  as  so  ludicrous  that  I  found  it  diffi- 
cult to  avoid  laughing.  A  moment's  reflection,  however,  enabled  me 
to  understand  how  he  came  to  possess  such  an  idea.  A  speech  abound- 
ing in  anecdotes  had  a  few  weeks  previously  been  made  in  that  region, 
and  some  of  the  papers  had  stated  that  this  was  the  greatest  speech 
that  had  been  made  since  the  times  of  Clay  and  Webster. 

Genuine  wit  is  a  highly  intellectual  and  important  faculty.  It  has 
been  well  said  that  no  one  ever  laughed  loud  at  a  thing  really  witty. 
The  great  English  debater,  Charles  James  Fox,  was  pronounced  the 
wittiest  man  of  his  day.  His  wit  was  most  strikingly  shown  when 
in  the  course  of  his  powerful  argument  he  so  exposed  the  positions  of 
his  adversaries  as  to  make  them  appear  supremely  ridiculous.  Mr. 
Webster,  in  a  lesser  degree,  sometimes  exhibited  this  quality.  Wholly 
unlike  it,  and  most  demoralizing  to  the  public  taste,  is  that  counter- 
feit, a  species  of  buffoonery,  which  consists  in  the  retailing  of  stale 
anecdotes,  after  the  fashion  of  Christy's  minstrels  or  the  circus  clown, 
who  delivers  his  jokes  around  at  his  successive  performances. 

Speakers  should  see  that  while  they  ought,  to  be  effective,  to  avoid 
wordy  dullness  on  the  one  hand,  and  mere  entertaining  frivolity  on 
the  other,  they  must,  by  thought,  provide  themselves  with  something 
to  say,  and  then  endeavor  to  say  it  in  a  manner  that  will  make  it  clear 
and  impressive.     Especially  should   they,  instead  of  degrading  the 


(  24) 

public  tastes  for  the  sake  of  temporary  applause,  strive  to  elevate  the 
tone  of  intellectual  thought  and  of  moral  feeling  and  sentiment. 

While  such  applause  as  comes  spontaneously  and  generally  from 
the  audience,  gratifies  a  speaker,  and  adds  to  the  force  of  his  address, 
the  counterfeit  substitute  sometimes  exhibited  has  the  contrary  effect. 

Loud  stamping  and  yelling  is  usually  the  work  of  a  few  zealous 
partizans;  it  irritates  opponents  and  disgusts  fair  minded  persons,  who 
otherwise  might  be  convinced.  When  one  expects  to  make  converts, 
he  must  conciliate,  rather  than  irritate  opponents.  In  my  canvass  in 
1840,  learning  that  zealous  friends  had  prepared  a  log  cabin  for  parade 
at  a  meeting,  I  caused  it  to  be  kept  concealed  in  the  woods,  lest  its 
exhibition  might  irritate  those  whom  I  wished  to  win  over.  The  most 
effective  speeches  I  ever  heard  were  those  that  were  listened  to 
in  profound  silence.  An  audience  absorbed  fully  in  the  words  and 
thoughts  of  the  speaker,  is  unwilling  to  interrupt  him  even  for  a  single 
moment,  though  at  the  close,  they  may  sometimes  give  expression  to 
their  feelings  by  deep,  general,  prolonged  applause. 

Ladies  and  gentlemen,  more  than  fifty  years  have  passed  by  since  I 
attended  a  commencement  at  this  University.  So  numerous  have  been 
the  great  events  in  the  world's  history  within  that  period,  that  we  have 
not  time  even  to  glance  at  them.  I  regret  to  be  compelled  to  say,  that 
as  respects  our  own  State,  the  anticipations  of  that  day  have  not  been 
realized.  For  a  few  years  prior  to  the  late  civil  war,  our  State  was 
making  great  progress  in  her  material  advances.  But  for  that  war,  I 
think  North  Carolina  would,  when  her  condition  as  a  whole  was  con- 
sidered, rank  with  the  foremost  of  the  States. 

Of  her  action  in  that  war,  it  may  truthfully  be  said  that  she  did 
her  full  duty  to  herself  and  to  humanity.  Having  delayed  her  move- 
ment as  long  as  her  safety  and  honor  would  permit  her  to  do,  she 
went  into  the  contest  with  uncalculating  devotion  to  the  public  cause, 
and  I  feel  confident  gave  to  it  in  material  and  men,  more  than  any 
other  State.  When  the  struggle  closed,  two  thirds  of  our  property  had 
been  destroyed,  and  probably  a  majority  of  our  best  men  had  fallen  in 
battle.  It  then  seemed  to  me  almost  impossible  that  all  of  our  people 
should  escape  starvation.  Nevertheless  there  has  in  each  successive 
year,  been  an  upward  progress,  and  our  citizens  generally  are  provided 
with  the  necessaries  of  life  and  some  of  its  luxuries. 

We  often  hear  a  desire  expressed  for  the  introduction  of  Northern 
capital  to  aid  us.  There  are  two  reasons  why  we  cannot  secure  much 
of  this.  The  press  of  the  dominant  party  there,  to  secure  political 
capital  at  home,  makes  it  a  business  to  assail  and  misrepresent  our 
people.  When  at  the  North,  even  within  the  last  twelve  months,  I 
hear  persons  apparently  intelligent,  assert  that  Northern  men  are  not 
protected  in  the  South.  The  agents  of  Western  emigrant  societies,  to 
secure  emigration  to  their  own  section,  also  seek  to  make  similar  im- 
pressions. 

A  second  obstacle  to  our  obtaining  capital  from  the  North  is  due  to 
this  disposition  in  the  human  mind.  As  speculators  will  not  buy  in 
a  falling  market,  so  men  seldom  go  to  poor  countries,  but  rather  direct 
their  steps  to  communities  that  are  rising  and  prosperous.     If  the  im- 


(25) 

pression  existed  that  we  were  so  prosperous  that  we  did  not  need  aid 
from  abroad,  capital  would  seek  our  territory  to  share  our  prosperity. 

We  must  rely  mainly  on  the  efforts  of  our  own  people.  Industry, 
directed  by  intelligence,  and  economy  in  expenditure,  will,  in  time, 
enrich  us,  Our  present  greatest  enemies  are  indolence  and  ignorance. 
Vigor  in  action,  directed  by  intelligence  in  method  and  instruments, 
must  be  our  main  reliance.  I  once  told  the  members  of  our  Legisla- 
ture, that  they  could  do  nothing  perhaps  better  for  the  State  than  to 
send  champions  to  fight  these  two  old  wrong-doers,  ignorance  and 
laziness. 

If  our  people,  as  a  whole,  perform  three-fourths  as  much  work  as 
they  ought  to  do,  and  support  themselves  thereby,  then  if  they  would 
only  do  the  other  fourth  we  should  make  a  profit  of  twenty-five  per 
cent,  per  annum,  and  would  thus  soon  become  wealthy.  If  for  a 
dozen  years  our  citizens  were  to  labor  as  earnestly  and  industriously 
as  they  did  during  the  war,  and  live  as  economically,  we  should 
become  the  richest  people  upon  earth.  If  this  cannot  be  hoped  for, 
at  least  let  us  strive  to  come  as  near  to  such  a  standard  as  possible. 

The  destruction  of  our  system  of  education,  and  its  only  partial 
restoration,  is,  to  my  mind,  the  saddest  result  of  the  war.  Its  full 
restoration,  with  added  efficiency  and  advantages,  is  the  most  urgent 
call  of  the  present  hour.  You  whom  I  now  address  can  do  much  in 
this  cause,  and  I  trust  the  energies  of  the  State  will  be  vigorously  and 
successfully  brought  to  your  aid. 

An  intelligent,  industrious  and  enterprising  body  of  citizens  can  so 
develope  the  great  natural  advantages  of  the  State  as  to  make  North 
Carolina  one  of  the  most  prosperous  and  noblest  communities  that 
has  ever  existed. 

If,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  these  suggestions,  perhaps 
too  much  extended,  I  shall  have  brought  to  your  minds  thoughts  that 
may  be  interesting  in  themselves,  or  calculated  to  be  of  advantage 
hereafter,  our  time  will  not  have  been  spent  in  vain. 


